Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

For the record, these amendments, as Senator Kemp explained last night, basically seek to improve—to use his words—the various aspects that are already in the legislation. The Democrats’ position is that we oppose the whole section. I think there is a Labor amendment down the track that goes to that, so whether or not we support these amendments is probably fairly redundant inasmuch as they clearly do something that we do not support anyway. But I thought it appropriate to put our position on the record and also to emphasise that it is completely unsatisfactory to just say, ‘We told the land councils.’ I know the land councils are representative bodies, but surely if the federal government had any genuine commitment to the concept of genuine consultation with traditional owners and affected communities then they would consult directly with people. It is quite clear who the affected people are—certainly with regard to the land claims over intertidal zones.

This excuse, which was also given during the Senate inquiry, that, ‘We told the land councils’—as though that is sufficient for consultation—is simply not good enough. If this legislation is to pass unamended, I hope that the federal government at least improves its performance in that regard. It cannot just rely on continuing to tell land councils things and then expecting them to do everything else with regard to consultation. This is particularly the case given that, if this legislation passes unamended, the land councils, if they upset the federal minister by something that they do, will have the concern that the federal minister may cut their budget down the track. This legislation, if it is unamended, will give the federal minister that power.

It also needs to be emphasised that people may have legal advice about the niceties of whether this is land that is legally owned by Aboriginal people or not, but the simple fact is that the governments may have thought that it was an ambit claim. There is no doubt that the Northern Territory government supports the federal government’s approach; of course it would, because it is in the Northern Territory government’s self-interest in this situation. It is no great secret that the Northern Territory government—whether it is a Labor government or a Country Liberal government—has always wanted to ensure that it and not Indigenous people has control of these areas, so of course it would support it. It is in its self-interest.

The simple fact is that this is land that had been determined by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner as being entitled for claim. As was made quite clear to the Senate committee inquiry, if the grant had been allowed, it would have been used to generate resources for Indigenous communities. That is what is being removed by this overall section. In fact, these amendments might make it clearer that that is to happen. I suppose certainty is always desirable, even if it is certainty of injustice. There is no doubt of the position of the Northern Territory government on this, and in that Senator Kemp is right. But that does not make what is being done correct.

It was quite clear to the Senate committee inquiry that this process will remove an opportunity for some economic gain for the people who would have been successful in obtaining a grant of this land. The government want to wipe that aside by simply saying, ‘We don’t agree with it.’ Obviously, governments can do that, because governments since European settlement have done that. They have taken away land and said: ‘We don’t think that’s appropriate. We’ll have it, thank you.’ But I do not think that we should let that pass with just a wave of the hand, as though it is something of no great significance. It is significant, particularly given that, as the minister has said, it has been done without any direct notification of or consultation with the people who are directly affected. That shows a lack of respect. That is an indication of the broader problem with the approach that is being taken here. Some may suggest that process does not matter. I am not one of those. Process is important. The process of how you do things influences the final outcome.